Good golly! what has happened to the interest in this forum? I have been away for some time and only able to pop in on a rare occasion due to work commitments. Used to take hours to get caught up but now it's fairly bleak. We seemed to have run off all the controversial posters and with that there seemes to be nothing but milk toast sort of topics. Oh well such is life.

Some of them used to tick me off and I certainly didn't like some of the personal attacks. for sure...but hey.... I can take it.... but come on, obituaries? that's ok, but there has to more then that here!! hehehehe

Flosum: I'll be happy to contribute. I am very concerned, as are a majority of Americans, with President Bush's headlong push for a war with Iraq. Understand, I have no sympathy for Saddam Hussein; he is a bloody dictator whose demise will be celebrated in Iraq and around the world. That said, I will also say that war is and should always be a LAST resort. Does Iraq pose a imminent danger to the United States or to his neighbors in the Middle East? If he does, the Bush Administration has not presented a convincing case of that argument. Has he fully complied with the requirements of the United Nations? WE DON'T KNOW! There are inspectors in Iraq who have been repeatedly sent to various sites as the specific request of the United States. They have yet to find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Interestingly, the Bush Administration is insisting upon a standard for proof that the United States itself could not meet. Does anyone remember the anthrax scare? Does anyone recall at the time that our defense specialists told us that we could not account for all of the anthrax and other chemical and biological agents that had been produced over the past 50 years. On September 10, 2001, (the day before 9/ll/01) Secretary of Defense Rumsfield said in a speech that fully 25% of all Defense spending could not be accounted for. Weapons of all kinds could not be tracked or found. Wars are messy events in which lives -- both military and civilian -- and huge amounts of material are lost, misplaced, etc. To initiate a war in which our soldiers will lose their lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians will lose their lives because Iraq cannot account for every item ever produced in their military arsenal is madness. KEEP THE INSPECTORS THERE. CONTINUE LOOKING UNDER EVERY ROCK AND CRANNY! BUT DON'T LET LOSE THE DOGS OF WAR. The resulting instability in that part of the world is appalling to contemplate. I watched and listened in horror the other night when a smiling spokesman for the Bush "war team" explained that in the first two days of a war with Iraq, the plans were to hit Baghdad with 200-300 cruise missiles each day. "There won't be a safe place in all of Baghdad." this smiling gentleman said. There are 5 million people in Baghdad and the least likely person to be killed, maimed, or injured in such a barrage is Saddam Hussein. What will be the legacy for us in that part of the world should we attack for the reasons that Bush now says justifies such an attack? No imminent threat to the U.S. No evidence thus far of weapons of mass destruction. A lot of bluster about "defending Iraq" but no threats against any of Iraq's neighbors. Where is the justification for war?

As for proof of him having weapons of mass destruction, was any of those planes flown into the WTC considered “weapons of mass destruction”?

The big problem I have with pacifism is that it only survives because others are will to die so the pacifist can sit back and call the rest of us war mongers.

It is no real surprise that inspectors can’t find “the smoking gun”. They have had years to hide weapons, and to be honest with you, to me that is not even that big of a deal. If Saa-damm could buy a nuke and deliver it, he’d do it in a heart beat.

I for one am not willing to take the risk of waiting until we see a few more thousand, or perhaps million, blown to snot as the only “proof” that some would be willing to except. And even then the turn the other cheekers would not support an attack.

Flosum: Even if I agreed with your anxious arguments, I'd like you to take a look at two glaring problems. First, you readily admit that there is no "smoking gun," no evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, despite teams of inspectors going all over Iraq -- sometmes visiting specific sites where U.S. intelligence said there were "strong suspicions" of such weapons. Are we to risk literally tens of thousands of lives (mostly Iraqui civilians but most certainly a larger number of American soldiers than in Desert Storm) on the basis of "suspicions" or even circumstansial evidence? I sincerely hope not. Secondly, if you are concerned about bloody dictators who are unpredictable why haven't we made plans for the invasion of North Korea? Kim Jong II is certainly a bloody dictator who tortures, starves, and brutalizes his people. He ALREADY HAS nuclear weapons and intermediate-range missiles that he has publicly tested over the Sea of Japan. He has the second-largest standing army in Asia next to China. And he is constantly railing against the United States and its allies. There is very strong evidence that he has exported whole weapon systems to the enemies of the U.S., including terrorist groups in the Middle East. And he is not about to submit to any kind of inspection despite having signed United Nations treaties (and an agreement with the United States) to refrain from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. If we are to invade those that we THINK HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR CAUSING US HARM we'd better reinstitute the draft and get ready to fight all out war on virtually every continent in the world (except for Australia but then those aborigines look a little dangerous to me) because that is what we will confront. Keep the inspectors in Iraq, keep 70-80,000 troops on Saddam's doorstep, make sure he is hemmed in and carefully watched, but there is no justification for an invasion, the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and perhaps hundreds of U.S. casualities , a long and (and probably bloody) occupation of Iraq, and very serious risks of de-stabilizing that entire part of the world. War should be the last resort not simply another option.

Back a few years in the first resolution the U.N. clearly stated they knew of biological and other weapons of mass destruction in the possession of the madman. No one questions that resolution, but how soon we forget. He used them weapons to annihilate 5000 of his own people in one village that we and the rest of the world know of.. It was clearly spelled out that he had to account for those weapons and or their destruction. There is a real list with real numbers. He has failed to do that, plain and simple.

As for “risks of de-stabilizing that entire part of the world”, that’s joke right? You call a madman killing, raping, torturing, and God only know what else to his own people “stable”? You call what’s going on over there with the Afghanistan situation stable? Israel vs. the Palestinians, stable? Pakistan and India, stable? Give me a break!

Hussein has long been a supporter of terrorism. He along with a couple other renegades from the region were the main supporters of Carlos the Jackel back in the 80s, and not much has changed. The open payments by his government to the families of suicide bombers is simply the tip of the iceberg here. The real problem for this country, however, is that we are entering a new era with a totaly new style of warfare. A style that we are not used to participating in and one that our usual methods are ill equiped to take care of. This will require many changes on our part if we are to survive. The first issue that must go is the traditional American reluctance to enter combat. We could afford this type of nobility in the old days, but no longer. A few simpletons with some financial backing and a few flight lessons just recently pulled off an attack against the United States that made Pearl Harbor look like child's play. It does not take too much of a stretch of the imagination to see what could happen the next time. Arm this same bunch of fanatics with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and the result will be too terrible to imagine. Iraq is simply the first of what will be a growing number of armed conflicts that we must enter into if we are to protect ourselves. We will either get used to this process or many, many of us will die.

There will never be peace in some parts of the world. Its as simple as that. We are going to be dragged into a no-win situation that will never end until we pull out with a Vietnam style "victory". Politics and religion---don't ever try to convert the zealots in those two areas, right?

Having said that though, I do belive we have to go in and do whatver it takes to keep those political/religious zealots from harming our fellow Americans. Is that possible? Is it possible to "convince" them to leave us out of it? Not as long as they are teaching their young warriors to hate Americans and all we stand for.

It pretty much sounds like a no win situation. As long as they don't come over here and hurt Americans we leave them alone? But some of them have already done damage here, obviously. Where do we let it end? "Okay, you can kill 4500 innocent Americans, but thats it!"

Its like trying to make a spoiled child obey after too many years of doing whatever he wants. Why should any of those creators of weapons of mass distruction think the UN is serious this time?

Here's one, what about a war to help the economy? Its worked before. How big of a war would we need to pull the country out of a recission?

Short Term: Buy our oil from the Russians & let the Middle East countries play with themselves. The Russians could use the capital to bolster their attempt to change their economy. The Middle East would be free of the "evil" U.S. influence & money. After the M.E. countries are done fighting with each other, negotiate with the survivors.

This will be my last post on this subject. There appear to be a number of misconceptions and misinformation that I will address and then, obviously, there are those who don't see the hazards in war that I see. First, Saddam Hussein is a beast, a truly evil person. But THAT IS NOT NEWS. He was a beast when he received military support from the U.S. while he was at war with Iran. Further, there are other "beastly" governments around the world that don't like the United States and are dangerous. The Bush Administration, before 9/11/0l labeled Sudan a "terrorist" nation. The Khartom government trained terrorists, supplied money and arms to the Al Quida and Taliban and used U.S. oil money to buy military equipment to slaughter 2 million Christians in southern Sudan. No hint of attacking Sudan...or Yemen, or Pakistan, or Iran. Saddam Hussein has, indeed, resisted full inspections which he had agreed to following Desert Storm. But then Korea has failed to permit inspections required by U.N. and U.S. agreements, has flaunted the fact that it has nuclear weapons, has successfully tested intermediate-range missiles, and is constantly threatening South Korea and holding mass rallies to denounce the United States while its leader, Kim Jong II brutalizes and starves his own people. No hint of invading Korea. Inspectors are ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ AND APPARENTLY RECEIVING REASONABLY GOOD COOPERATION! If nothing else, its pretty difficult for a nation to mount any kind of offensive against its neighbors or anybody else while inspectors are moving unhindered throughout the country. We may also be imposing a standard for inspections on Iraq that neither Iraq or any other nation could meet -- including the United States. We can't account for all the anthrax and other chemical and biological weapons we've produced in the last fifty years and fully 25% of all defense spending in this country CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR! That comes from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Is is reasonable for us to demand that a country not nearly as advanced as we meet a standard for accountability that we cannot meet? Then there is the whole matter of consequences. A war with Iraq isn't going to make relationships with Muslin countries any better. If he is alive, Osama bin Laden is undoubtedly praying that the U.S. will invade Iraq. The specter of tens of thousands of dead Iraqis will provide fuel for inflaming hatred toward the U.S. in the muslim world for decades. How do you suppose we will fare in an occupation of Iraq for what experts tell us will be at least a decade? Iraq, even with Hussein, is less a nation than a battleground for various (at least five major) ethnic groups who continually compete for power. Do we really want to be in the middle of that as well as battling the hatred of the muslim world? We promised to rebuild Afgahanistan and expected it to stablize after the Taliban were defeated. Read a newspaper lately about how all that is going. We're still engaged in constant skirmishes and the government is still very shaky and re-building is going very slowly because our own resources are stretched thin. And, of course, there is the wild card of Israel and the Palestinians. The Sharon government has just won re-election and the killing has resumed with increased intensity. Israel wants us to invade Iraq; Sharon strongly supports that idea. Indeed, a U.S. attack on Iraq is seen as strengthening Israel's hand in forcing its will on the Palestinians on Israel's terms. From another perspective, a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq will suggest a U.S./Israeli military hegemony in the reqion. How do you suppose that will be seen by the overwhelming Muslim population in that part of the world? There are moderate voices in Israel who are suggesting that a settlement in Israel has been set back by the re-election of the Sharon government and would be virtually impossible if the U.S. attacks and occupies Iraq. Finally, the really big question: WHY? Does Iraq pose an imminent threat to us or to his neighbors? Answer: No. For all of his bluster Saddam Hussein is a paper tiger who hasn't seriously threatened anyone for twelve years. His neighbors in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. haven't been threatened or asked for our help and protection from him. He has no capability for a strike against us. There is no credible evidence that he had anything to do with 9/ll/0l. The terrorist known as the "Jackal" was found murdered in Iraq

And yet another yadda.... yadda.... post from Bob..... Not going to rebut this nonsense, again...it has been rebutted and nearly every thinking person in the universe recognizes that ....

You tell some folks the sun sets in the west and rises in the east and they would deny it and demand undisputable proof....the fact that it has been doing so for a few hundred-thousand? million? years would still not make a believer out them.... Some folks just never let truth, facts and reality sway their opinions.

"Some folks just never let truth, facts and reality sway their opinions." There dangles JFlosum, hoist by his own petard.

When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.

So what is Bush's urgency on the war issue? He has been dancing around like a little boy about to wet himself saying, "Time is running out, time is running out". Running out on what? If Saddam had any weapons "mass destruction" or otherwise he certainly would have used them by now.

Bush claims he knows he has them, so why doesn't he share his information with the weapons inspectors?

Now maybe they didn't teach much history in that fancy college Bush went to, but historically take a look at what happened the last time America went to a war that did not have the people's support.

"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah

>Bush claims he knows he has them, so why doesn't he share his information with the weapons inspectors?

It’ not just Bush that knows he has these weapons, the entire world knows it. Go back and read the UN resolutions. They are listed there by item. NO ONE disputed these documents when they were voted on and passed. The resolution clearly states he has to account for those weapons, something he has failed to do.

How many more 9/11 incidents do you do you want before you think we need to take action? How many more innocent lives? 3000? 5000? 10000? 100,000?

Is the only proof that some are willing to accept have to be releasing some sort of bio-terrorism or nuclear weapon on an American city like he has already done on his own citizens?

The real sad thing here is that most of opposition to Bush taking action against Iraq is merely opposition to Bush; political malcontents and just plain poor losers, refusing to except Bush as “their” president. Liberals in an effort to advance their own and block anyone else’s agenda, are all to willing to see the country exposed to further acts of violence no matter how many more lives may be lost. Sad indeed.

The UN resolutions are over ten years old and even the United States Military couldn't make their inventories match with ten year old record keeping (as congress occasionally points out).

You ask, "How many more 9/11 incidents do you do you want before you think we need to take action? How many more innocent lives? 3000? 5000? 10000? 100,000?"

The connection of 9/11 has it has come to be known has not been shown to be connected to Iraq in any convincing fashion.

Biological and Chemical weapons have yet proven less effective than conventional weapons. We killed 10,000 Japanese (civilians) a day by old fashion heavy firebombing of their cities. This leads to another one of the many fuzzy areas of Bush logic. What is a weapon of mass destruction, Anthrax that when unleashed on the East coast of the US killed 3 people or handguns that kill 12,000 a year?

Handguns have never killed a sole. Unfortunately people using them have. And a great number of them morons using handguns to kill are turned out of prisons by liberals or never get there because of the liberals that support more rights for criminals then for victims.

I forget what country it is, but the number one weapon of choice for killing is the baseball bat. So, ligic applies we need to get them all registered too I guess.

As for "fuzzy areas of Bush logic", it's not Bush's logic. The entire Security Council of the UN approved those resolutions long before Bush was in office, the same resolutions that were totally supported by Bill Clinton.

I guess applying a bit more logic would have one believe that if the planes used in 9/11 would have been full of a few hundred pounds of anthrax or small pox or nuke waste you would have no problem with that?

As for "fuzzy areas of Bush logic", it's not Bush's logic. The entire Security Council of the UN approved those resolutions long before Bush was in office. The same resolutions that were totally supported by Bill Clinton.

I guess applying a bit more logic would have one believe that if the planes used in 9/11 would have been full of a few hundred pounts of anthrax or samll pox or nuk waste yu would have no problem with that?

The organization I assume that Abraham is affiliated with (he has their URL as part of his last message) is a thing called "Not in Our Name" or NION. This organization is in turn a product of another one called "Women's International League for Peace and Freedom" or WILPF. If you try to donate money to NION your donation goes to WILPF. This organization has as one of its core concepts the surrender of all national power to the United Nations with that body then deciding how to solve all the problems on the planet. This is just one of a number of their really off-the-wall ideas. I have not listed the other ones here for the sake of brevity. This organization is yet another of the arrogant authoritarian liberal groups who feel they have figured out the best way for the rest of us to live. They would now like to set up the apparatus to force us to live their way and have cloaked their efforts with a thin coating of the usual "peace, love, and brotherhood" rhetoric that they know we all love to hear. Leftist organizations of this type have been hiding behind other issues for years, confusing the **** out of well-meaning citizens. By the time most realize what they have gotten themselves into it is too late to back away. If you want to be against the war with Iraq that is your right, but it behooves us all to find out who we are getting in bed with to express our opinions. I doubt whether most who are sceptical about the upcoming war are also sceptical about the maintenance of our individual freedoms or our national identity and the continuation of our ability to lay out our own national course. We are a pretty independent bunch here in the Northwoods and I suspect that the vast majority of us would like to keep it that way.